hopefully we will look good among early votes. remember, final comment, obama -- host: we are running out of time. thank you for talking to our viewers. and that does it for today's "washington journal." thank you for watching our battleground series continue. tomorrow we look at nevada. all of the swing states. we will take a deep dive looking at all of them. we will see you tomorrow.

. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> looking at some of our live events today across the seas about network, and about half an hour, leon panetta will take part in a joint briefing with his south korean counterpart. you can see that starting at 10:03 eastern here on c-span. at 10:50, we will show you a forum on legal issues from the u.s. chamber of commerce. the speakers include several attorneys general and rudy giuliani and that is on c-span 2. at 2:20 eastern, paul ryan will be in cleveland speaking to ohio voters. we will have a live for you. a little bit later, president obama is out west today in denver and we will have his remarks live at 4:50 eastern on c-span. asking middle and high

school students to send a message to the president in a short video. they will answer the question -- what is the most important issue the president should consider it in 2013. it is the cspan student camp video competition. for complete details, go online to student cam.org. there was a recent debate to represent the ninth congressional district of arizona. kyrsten sinema has served in the house of representatives and was elected to the arizona senate in 2010 and burnham parker was elected to the paradise valley city council in 2008. this debate is courtesy of kae- tv and is under half an hour.

>> tonight's show is a debate between the nine congressional district representatives. this is an opportunity for give- and-take between candidates and one of the state's most important offices. interruptions are allowed provided that those interested are allowed to respond. three candidates are in the race to represent this district, a democrat, kyrsten sinema, republican burn and parker, and

libertarian powell gammill. he is making his fifth run for congress. each candidate will have the opportunity for one minute opening statements. we would drew numbers to see who goes first and that is powell gammill. >> i differ from the other two candidates because i am not here to rule over you but to advocate for our personal freedom. i live by a single principle that it is illegal to initiate force or from others and i expect everyone else to live by that same standard. that is what the founding fathers were trying to give us, a system that maximizes personal liberty and profit and minimizes the cost to optimize our life by providing the freedom to keep and enjoy the fruits of our labors and not to let a bunch of thugs come along and steal from those. tonight is really about the only

two choices you have -- you choosing who rules over you are you choosing not to participate in that process. it is wrong to initiate force or fraud on others. >> thank you very much. next, kyrsten sinema. >> good evening and thank you for having us. i'm running for congress because i believe congress is no longer serving we the people. across the country, folks are struggling especially right here in arizona to get jobs and keep jobs and take care of their families. with a congress that is more interested in political bickering and taking ideological swipe at each other. i believe we deserve better. across the state, people are trying hard to get jobs. folks who have jobs are struggling to keep them and take care of their kids and prepare for their kids' future. we need folks were willing to work across the aisle to solve problems. i have a record of doing just that. in the seven years i served in

the arizona state legislature, i worked across the aisle with folks on both edges of the political spectrum. there have been folks in the past that have provided roles to continue that great tradition in arizona. >> thank you very much in our final opening statement is from fernand parker. >> thank you all for tuning in. our country is going to her some very difficult times. we have out of control spending, we have unacceptable unemployment. when i served as mayor, had to make some difficult decisions. to either raise taxes or cut spending. i work with republicans, democrats, and independent and we cut our spending by 30% and our town was better off for it. if you sent to congress, i promise you that i will work across the aisle to work with republicans and democrats to make sure that we get america back to work and we get the

middle class back to work and that we have a health care system that is second to none and an education system that is second to none and that we restore the $716 billion that has been rated for medicare. i promised to work and put the american people first and not to put republicans or democrats in front of the american people. >> thank you very much. how best do we create jobs in arizona and america? >> i put out a 12-point jump a plan that talks about specific ways that congress can help with a better job climate. first, companies reap tax rewards for shipping jobs overseas. that put americans out of jobs. i want to switch the tax code around and provide tax breaks for businesses that hire folks in america.

i would also support businesses and give them tax credits to hire veterans who have served our country and have great skills we can put to use right here in arizona. research and development tax credit -- when i served in the state legislature, i helped pass a research and development credit for arizona. we need to do that federally to bring those jobs right here to america. >> how best to get jobs in arizona and america? >> i have a 16-point plan so maybe my plan is a four-point better. we should freeze the current tax rate. if we do that, we would put $4,000 in the pockets of middle- class americans. we must become more competitive on the global scene. we can no longer have the highest corporate income tax and the world. right now, if we lower our corporate income tax, we will

create 2 million jobs here in america. if we reinvest and make sure that the research and development tax credit is extended by 25%, there is another 500,000 jobs. i fully support building i-11 to las vegas from phoenix because that will create jobs. also we should keep luke air force base open. >> this is something i find offensive. my grandfather is an army veteran who served in world war two and my dad served in vietnam. i have big brothers that served in the marines and a little brother who currently is serving in the united states navy. there are lots of guys in my family that our military so i have a strong record of

supporting military families and records. i'm the only candidate here this evening who has a record on luke air force base. i voted eight times to preserved luke air force base. >> did you ever advocate to close the air force base? >> in 2002, when i ran for the legislature as an independent, i was from a republican party so it took me awhile to become a democrat. when i was younger, based on the information i had told, the was a good idea but my brothers taught me the most and toward -- important thing we could do is to keep those jobs open and that's why it passed legislation to protect military families and veterans throughout this state. >> seriously, this is how you reduce the debt we are in is keeping an air force base open?

comeon? how the jobs into this state? jobs are created when businesses have surplus money and needs. with the federal government ribbon of businesses, with high taxes, you have to go in there and gut that. we should eliminate all federal and corporate taxes. we should see how good the baking skills of these two are. we also need to get rid of all the regulations and mandates that the government puts on businesses that crushes a life out of them. you do that and is suddenly have surplus money in those businesses and they will start to hire people. >> the idea of supply-side economics, some would argue why don't we return to that ideology? some see that as one of the reasons we had the great

recession in the first place. >> we must be very competitive on the global scene. we cannot have the highest corporate income tax and the world. must reduce our corporate income tax. our number one export right now -- we are exporting jobs to china and to india. i firmly believe that in order for us to be more competitive, we must take a look at our current tax structure >> what do you think about the idea that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy? will tax cuts pay for themselves? >> some tax cuts make a lot of sense -- a sense like the bush tax cuts. families are struggling to put food on the table. i have a fundamentally different idea how to help middle-class families to get families back on their feet. i think the way to do is to

support middle-class families. i believe we should stop the bush tax cuts for the richest 2% in our country. if we continue those tax cuts, it will add $1 trillion to our country's deficit over the next 10 years. i don't think we can leave that for our kids and grandkids. >> what about that tax? >> let me respond -- she has proposed in the past that we raise taxes on middle-class families who make $75,000 or more. she has also proposed that we tax services like barber shops and here drivers and has proposed that we tax plastic bags 25 cents per bag. that will put an enormous burden on middle-class families. when people talk about not cutting taxes -- when you cut taxes on people making $200,000 or more, those are smart business owners.

they are paying at the individual right and hiring americans. the notion that someone who makes $250,000, that they are rich and wealthy and they should not receive tax breaks, that is unimaginable. >> i would like to clarify my record. when i served in the state legislature, i never proposed a tax increase on middle class families. this is a highlight of the difference between us. he wants to give tax breaks to the wealthiest americans and i want to give a break to middle- class families. if it had not been for all low income tax credit that helped folks like me with pell grants get our feet, we would not have made it. >> the reason why mr. sununu did

not make taxes because the legislature is controlled by republicans. she never had the opportunity. she had advocated tax increases. that is unfair to say that she did not vote for tax increases because she never had the opportunity. >> would you raise taxes and the federal government? we have heard that in debates around the country, the idea of the $250,000 earners per year should pay more. >> those are individuals. who haveusiness owners s-corps and llc that pay at the individual rate. they must have the resources to reinvest into our community. they need the resources to create more jobs. it is unfair to tax those

individuals who supply 90% of the jobs in this country. >> it is trickle-down economics that does not work. teachers, nurses, doctors, >> i don't think that make $250,000 and they cannot be considered a millionaire. >> i never got a job for my poor person. don't ever where their money. -- don't take away rich people's money and expect jobs to go up. it will go the opposite way. no corporation or business in this country pays any tax. all those taxes that are out there, that gets taxed -- tacked on to the products the company manufactures. effectively, you are taxing yourself.

>> we move on to health care -- would you repeal but affordable care act? >> i work hard to help shape that law and make it fit in. this law is not perfect. there are important parts of law that must be protected. protections for kids and pre- existing health conditions like kids with autism, protection for folks who have breast cancer so kids don't kicked off their insurance. we need -- we don't need a repeal. that is not practical or likely to happen but what we need is bipartisan action to come together and fix parts of a law that did not work well for small businesses and families. >> this topic is very personal for me. my wife had a third stage breast cancer and lost their insurance because we could not afford it.

she recovered because we had the best doctors in the world and the best health-care system in the world but it is not affordable. the affordable care act did several things that went too far. it is too expensive. it will cost us $2.60 billion. the one provision is that it robbed of medicare of seven of its $60 billion. when i get to congress, i will fight to make sure that those cuts are restored. we are going to have bureaucrats in washington, d.c. destroying the doctor-patient relationship telling us when and how we can see doctors. it will destroy small business because never before in american history if you hired more than 50 people and they work more than 30 hours per week, you will be penalized. >> i think the small business is

likely to happen. what we need to do is work together to create more affordability for mid-sized businesses. businesses between 5200 employees -- -- businesses between 50 and 200 employees. the affordable care act cut out waste, fraud, and abuse and all agree we want to get rid of that. the concern is that mr. parker supports the romney-ryan budget. he supports their approach to entitlements. that would voucher eyes medicare and cost your grandmother $6,400 per year. >> i never said i supported the budget. let's get back to the health care -- i agree with certain

aspects -- that we should be able to purchase insurance for our children up to the age of 26 and we needed now because these kids do not have jobs. we must also address pre- existing conditions. in order to drive down those costs, we must be able to purchase insurance across state lines. doctors practice defensive medicine. we had to pay for these tests and we told the doctor that you need certain tests and i said i have to pay for this and he told us which ones we don't need. he was afraid he would be suited he did not prescribe them. >> is there any greater example for why the constitution and the federal government are

completely at odds with one another? the constitution is supposed to limit the federal government. there's nothing in the constitution about health care or permitting congress to pass health-care laws but they do. i would have voted against it. shows the difference between myself and the other two candidates. i completely oppose the federal government having any say in any aspect of people's medicine, especially the mandate. >> should social security be privatized? should medicaid be turned over to states? >> that's a great question. this is another area where we differ. he said he was interested in the romney-ryan budget as far as entitlements. >> that is not true. >> all right, there are three key areas -- medicaid block them

as would cause us to lose half of the funding we get to pay for health care in arizona. it also means [inaudible] if people are paying those taxes, we to get those dollars back. ion grandmother was widowed when she was in her early 20's in tucson. she had three kids on our own and worked minimum wage at a cafeteria. when she retired, all she had was social security and medicare. republicans in congress are proposing to of voucherize medicare , that is a dangerous idea. >> absolutely, i have never advocated privatizing social security. i am on record for continually saying that we must oppose our commitment. we must preserve medicare for

our seniors and social security. the system is broken and so we will have to do something to fix the system. when i get to congress, i will sit down with republicans and democrats to make sure that, in the future, we resolve the issues surrounding social security and medicare. >> what about returning medicaid to the states? >> i have no problem with that. >> so you think that is a good idea? >> i think that is a good idea. >> it medicate was returned to the state as a block grant, we would lose 50% of the funds we would get and that means that low-income workers, people with disabilities and seniors, 65% of the folks who benefit from access in this state -- that would mean that my grandmother would not take care and people with disabilities would not get care. >> someone argue that we cannot afford what is going on right now with access.

>> can't afford to not do it. when people can't afford health care, they show up for health care anyway in the emergency room. it does not benefit arizona to cut this program. >> she will continue to believe that big government is the answer and the federal government should be on patrol. i believe the decision should be made at the state level. we are here. we don't need washington, d.c. to tell us how to do business in the state of arizona. i am appalled that you would toss her grandmother out into the street simply because she does not have health insurance. >> that is what i just heard you say. i thought you'd come up with the money and help her out.

>> aren't there people would simply don't have the means. >> absolutely, until the 1950's, we had charities that would take care of such people, church groups but the federal government has come in and run them out of the business of doing that and taken over. as you can guess, social security, medicare and medicaid, nothing more. >> is man-made climate change real? do you believe in that? >> i don't believe in al gore in the internet -- and believe that al gore invented the internet either. we must be good stewards of our environment and make sure that we protect our environment. >> is climate change real? >> it is real and there is overwhelming evidence.

that is why i support laws to help create solar energy and alternative energy and arizona. it is not only important but it is important for national security perspective. if we can become more dependent on renewable sources, the less likely we will be dependent on volatile markets in the middle east. -- we havehe problem the largest oil reserves in the world. if we tap into that reserve, our economy would takeoff. we have to make sure that our president does not bowed down to a saudi king. we have to utilize those reserves and i am in favor of nuclear and solar.

gets us it is that independent, we need to pursue. >> find more resources within america? >> i think that is important to keep all our options on the table. we can make more, nader -- energy using solar energy. without in danger in some of our greatest land and natural resources. >> would drill? >> have to stop it right there. we will have closing statements. >> this was a lot of fun. i'm asking you today to support me and sent to congress. we must get our economy going. we must put the middle class back to work and we must protect our seniors and protect medicare and protect social security.

we must have an education system that is second to none. you have my commitment that i will work with republicans and democrats. right now, we have a congress that gets nothing done because they are more concerned about pinning the tail on the donkey or trying to lasso the elephant. the american people have been lost. i will make sure that we keep the prosperity of this country and we work to ensure for future generations that they have a future. put me in congress and i will work for you. our next closing statement is from kyrsten sinema. >> i'm running for congress because i want things to be better for arizona. when my dad lost his job, we lost everything. thanks to this great country and the opportunities here and a

good public education system, i was able to get back on my feet. i want that same opportunity for every kid and every family in this country. i'm running for congress because i believe we can keep the doors of opportunity open. when you combine hard work and a commitment to help each other, we can be the country we can be proud of every day. back in the day, barry goldwater was known for his pragmatic solutions and comments and this is the same situation. i will reach across the aisle and i will do that for you if you send me to washington, d.c. >> our final closing statement is from powell gammill. >> another two years and yet another opportunity for people to run for office for one candidate will win and your vote will not count. both candidates are unacceptable. you get to choose between the lesser of two evils.

in choosing between evil is still evil. the only art turn it is to choose not to participate. do not vote. you have better things to do than reaffirm the process were a bunch of rthugs divvy up your hard labor. either candidate is acceptable to washington, d.c. they need your participation and consent for it denied them both by finding better things to do this election. >> thank you very much an package for joining us tonight on this special edition. that is it for now. you have a great evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this debate is one of dozens of debates we bring you this election season. fall campaign 2012 live on the c-span television network, cspan radio and c-span.org. we will take you live to the

pentagon with a briefing with defense secretary leon panetta and south korea's defense minister tim gaughn gen -- kim kwan-jin and they will talk about how to deter north korean aggression. many soldiers are stationed in south korea. the news conference to get underway shortly and this is live coverage on c-span.

[no audio] [no audio] >> we are waiting to hear from

defense secretary leon panetta and the south korean counterpart, a joint news conference which should get underway shortly. a quick reminder about some of our coverage, less than two weeks away for election day. coming up this afternoon at 2:12 or so, rep paul ryan will be at cleveland state university and we will have that for you this afternoon and later today at about 4:55, president obama will kick off a two-day nonstop america forward door and the first of is in denver. we will have that live for you as well. [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

>> we are waiting live at the pentagon to hear from defense secretary leon panetta and the south korean defence minister kim kwan-jin in. they will have a news conference following their annual security talks. elsewhere on the cspan networks, on c-span 2, we are bringing you a discussion of the u.s. chamber of commerce of legal reforms across the country, a number of speakers are scheduled including former new york city mayor rudy guiliani and consumer products safety commission nancy n orris and that is getting underway fairly soon on c-span 2. on c-span 3, people supporting candidates are having a debate and brought you eight discussion on domestic and foreign policy and a couple of those have been live at c-span.org. this one will be at johns school of advanced

international studies. representatives of the campaign will talk about domestic and foreign policy issues falling tuesday night's foreign policy debate. a representative from president obama and met romney are among the participants live deceiving at 6:00 p.m. eastern on cspan 3. [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] >> at the pentagon for a news briefing about supposed to start 10 minutes ago with leon panetta and calling on gen. -- kim kwan-jin in. .

some of you may have seen our coverage last night of the independent candidate debate that happened on c-span. we carry that live and we will give you a chance to see it again midday today about 12:40 or so and we will bring you coverage of the candidates. paul ryan is and cleveland at cleveland state university and he will be live about 2:20 this afternoon here on c-span and president obama begins a two-day swing in denver just before 5:00 p.m. eastern and both of those will be live here on c-span. [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] >> it might be a couple of minutes longer or until we see the defense secretary and the defense and effort -- minister from south korea. we will bring a part of this morning's washington journal and bring you back when the press conference gets under way.

"the washington post"says this -- so in " the new york times" --

>> iowa and ohio are on our list of battleground states.

we will star with florida and then go to nevada on thursday ended continues throughout the next nine days leading up to election day, november 6. we will begin with a late decider in tennessee, are supporting president obama. when did you decide and why? caller: can you hear me? host: good morning. caller: the reason i am for obama is romney has not talked with the truth. i am a retired coal miner. he has absolutely told people he has supported coal and our union asked them if they support coal and neither one of them oneno, that they were for coal.

host: governor romney said he would not support coal? and this is what your union representatives told you? caller: that's right. we have other issues going on. they usually send a pamphlet or something. neither one of them as supporting coal. host: you've decided to support president obama now? caller: mitt romney is sitting there cutting the union school teachers down. he is not giving women support. that is taking away their jobs. he has not said that he is

letting mexicans come across the border and educating them and take our jobs. that's the way i look at that. host: let me get your reaction to this piece -- host: are you with me? caller: i'm still here.

host: story is about how governor romney is telling the people who support coal to support him. when did you hear from her union representative? caller: it was another rep. it was about two weeks ago. host: we will go on to wendy and pompom of beach in florida, now supporting governor romney. when did you make up your mind and why? caller: i have been going back and forth because obama said he would get the troops out from afghanistan. about an hour ago, i was getting ready for work, and i heard on fox news that mr. brown a posed a question -- would you trust president obama with your investments and your money, i

don't think so. that is when i said that is very important. if you can't trust someone with your money and he is president, that is pretty sad. he is not good -- all the money that he put into the different projects is not really made a return on investment. caller: host: host: so you made up your mind this morning? caller: yes, i did. host: what other issues made you feel torn? caller: the one issue was bringing the troops home. host: you trusted president obama on that? caller: i did. romney did not say he would bring the troops home. obama said he would get them out of there.

i think it is dangerous. it is not very productive and i think it is a waste of time. what is the point? they're just getting killed. i don't want those guys in the mountains being shot at. host: to fall on that callers' comments about the economy --

there is also this story in "the washington post" - pamela in kentucky, why did you decide to vote for jerry johnson and when? caller: i was looking at the show on cspan that just ended. host: covered the third party debate yesterday. caller: just saw a replay of it. i wish the rest of the nation could have listened to them. i don't know who has seen the

show. they talked to the things that i believe in. legalizing marijuana because it is just like prohibition. they talked about the mexicans coming over the border and the illegal sales. we have more people in jail on marijuana and drug charges than we do for all other crimes combined. i agree with gary johnson and he is from the libertarian party. he has some great things to say. instead of bailing out wall street, he would bail out the college students who are all in debt and cannot get jobs. they have a tremendous pell

grant to pay back. they are the ones that need bailing out because they are our future. we are on our third bailout of wall street. host: we will see what those other candidates have to say. why have you been holding out from supporting one of the two party candidates? caller: i was waiting for one of them to say something bad really inspired me. i wanted them to get me excited and get me to march into the streets. host: did gary johnson do that for you? caller: yes, i was leaning toward mitt romney. the two parties have morphed together. it will not make much difference, one or the other.

host: in case they missed it, i want to show a little bit from that third party presidential debate. [video clip] >> ballast budget now and not 10 years down the road like obama and run their talking about. jobs in america for american citizens first. i am the only candidate that has advocated a near complete moratorium on green card foreign worker admissions into this country until unemployment is under 5%. it makes no sense to bring in some many foreign workers when we need jobs in america for u.s. citizens first. >> as governor of new mexico, i ran outside the political system and got elected republican governor in a state that was two-one democrat and made a name for myself vetoing legislation. i may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. i vetoed 750 bills, i had

thousands of line item vetoes, it made a difference when it came to billions of dollars worth of spending greeted it made a difference when it came to laws that would have told you or i. what we could or could not do in the bedroom. caller: hos host: he will appear in the ballot in 48 states including a key battleground states with his blend of fiscal conservatism and libertarian social views to make him a compelling alternative for conservative voters not wedded to voting for governor romney. here is more from the third- party presidential debate. [video clip]

>> there are 90 million voters who are not coming out to vote in this election. as one out of every two voters. is twice as many as the number who will come out for barack obama and twice as many as the number will come out for mitt romney. those are voters who are saying no to politics as usual and saying no to the democratic and republican parties. imagine if we got out the word to those 90 million voters that they actually have a variety of choices and the voices in this election. >> obama and run the have refused to discuss the corrupting influence of money flowing from wall street banks and insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry and the fossil fuel industry or military contractors because they are the recipients of that corrupting money. neither of these dominant party candidates will have called for federal protection for marriage

equality. neither of them have called for an end to poverty or the end to the insane war on drugs or for the implementation of the wpa mission to that would hire millions of workers. host: those are your third party candidates and we are talking this morning with late into the ciders. this is from pensacola, fla. -- here is an historical take on voters to admit their decision during the last week of the campaign. this is from 1992-2004. in 1992, 25% of those voting made up their final decision during the last week of the campaign. 30.7% in 1996 and that has gone down 18.4%.

here's how it breaks down by party. there are a late decided and we are talking to them only this morning. davenport, iowa, caller: good morning. i took a scientific approach with a t-square that went down

the line on the two candidates and i began to realize in the last debate, it seemed like i listened to run a all along and he was acting different than last time. >> this is available in our video library at any time. we will take you live to the pentagon were defense secretary leon panetta and south korean defence minister kim kwan-jin are wrapping up their talks with a joint news conference. >> we welcome defense minister kiim to the pentagon. this is the fourth time the minister and i have met. and the second time that he and i have led the annual security consulting meeting held between the civilian and military leadership of our two defense establishments. in the course of these

meetings, and numerous other consultations we have had, the two of us have established, i believe, a strong working relationship. that relationship reflects the strength of the united states republic of korea alliance. today the minister kim and i affirm this alliance will remain a cornerstone of stability in northeast asia into the future. i assured the minister that the united states stands fully committed to the security of the republic of korea. make no mistake -- we will provide the forces and the military capabilities needed to help maintain security on the korean peninsula. we are also committed to deepening and adapting our defense cooperation to meet the

evolving security challenges in the region. the focus of much of our discussions was north korea. north korea remains a serious threat to both of our nation's. over the past year, north korea has continued its pattern of defiance and provocative actions. including the unsuccessful test of a ballistic missile capability. we reaffirmed that north korean aggression or military provocation will not be tolerated. we will continue working shoulder to shoulder to demonstrate our combined

resolve. the ninth it states the republic of korea are committed to close consultation -- close consultation for capabilities to counter north korean threats. we will continue to enhance close ally of cooperation to address wide-ranging global security challenges including reconstruction efforts, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, in counter proliferation. mr. kim and i agree the need to strengthen cooperation with respect to protection of space in cyberspace domains. we must ensure that this alliance stays ahead of the cyber threat.

we also welcome the signing of a space cooperation terms of reference for bilateral military space cooperation which formally establishes a united states republic of korea defense working group that will address space policy, architecture, training, and personal exchange. new defense strategy of the united states makes clear that as the military emerges from a decade of war we will rebalance gion.o he asia-pacific is important to global prosperity. a stronger u.s. republic of korea alliance is a critical

part of this rebalancing efforts. but we conclude. we are approaching the 60th anniversary of the end of the korean war and the birth of the alliance between the united states and the republic of south korea. for 60 years are to countries have stood side-by-side and forged security and prosperity for our nations. we have been tested time and time again. we have met every challenge. the reality is over the last 60 years we have preserved peace in the peninsula and that region. as a result today, this alliance is stronger than ever. i would like to think minister

camera -- kim for his commitment to this alliance and to our shared goal of a prosperous and forfor our people fo our nation's. thank you. >> this year's meeting was held amid incredible security be situation. this was all on the earlier thinking against the island. there were also held at a meaningful time since next year will mark the 60th anniversary since they korean war and the

caribbean/united states alliance. we discuss cooperative measures for peace and stability of the peninsula as well as tests for the future development of the alliance. our discussions have produced outcomes. secretary the net and i shared our common view that the two countries should have a shared vision to assure the progress. as a celebrate the 60th anniversary, we agree to join me develop the vision that will allow our relationship to continue evolving into an alliance. we noted that this deters no. 3 in provocation in making positive operations to the peace of the peninsula and that continued the robust future. as part of these tangible

measures, the u.s. reaffirmed its firm commitment to the security of the peninsula by remaining the current forces in korea and and rightfully providing reinforcement in the event of contingency. we affirm our shared view that north korea's military capabilities such as nuclear weapons programs and missiles would be serious threat not only to the security of the korean peninsula but to that of the world as a whole. in order to promote the u.s. commitment to provide deterrence, the two countries agreed on the concepts and principles for a bilateral deterrence strategy against north korean nuclear threat and decided to develop a tailored strategy based on these

concepts and principles. in order to better address the threat from north korea, the two countries agreed to agree the guidelines. we have a shared view that the revision will greatly contribute to the development of combined capabilities into a stronger alliance. this is the real schedule for the implementation of this strategy alliance 2015 and reaffirmed we will work closely in this area. in particular, at the countries agreed to jointly develop a future command structure that will ensure military efficiency after the trenchard -- transition of wartime control. secretary panetta appreciated

the transition to peace and stability including the reconstruction of afghanistan and haiti to deal forces in lebanon. we agreed to conitnue working closely to address regional and local security challenges. in order to meet the demands for security cooperation and the areas of space in cyberspace, and the two countries concluded the terms of reference on military space cooperation based on which will form a body for cooperation and further promote cyber cooperation among the agency. let me conclude by expressing my credits to buy the hospitality of secretary

panetta. is an opportunity to strengthen the republic of korean. the cree and united states will continue to work more closely sell our alliance will go well into the future. thank you. >> i was wondering if the us government is considering any type of plan to deploy troops in

case of north korean provocation? what extent the government planning? after the announcement, lawmakers and south korea raise speculations that washington wants them to join the missile defense. he tell the u.s. government's position about the issue? >> on the missile defense, what did you want me to clarify? >> every speculation that washington was held to join the u.s. missiles. we would like to hear the u.s. government's position. >> with regards to any provocations from the north, it is very clear if that south

korea and the united states have a strong cooperative relationship and that when those provocations occur that we will work together to determine what kind of response should be provided in necessary. i was relieved that the balloon incident which raised concerns about potential provocation did not occur. at the same time, i think both minister kim and i have made clear that we will continue to watch closely to make sure that those kinds of provocations do not take place and that in the end if they do take place that both south korea and the united states would be prepared to respond. with regard to the missile guidelines, south korea and the

united states have worked through the issue of missile guidelines. we have various conditions that both of us have agreed to as to how that would operate. dore going to continue to further work to refine those conditions and make sure we are clear as to how that decision would be implemented in future. with regard to future of this offense, at that is an area we continue to discuss an order to make sure we have all the defense is necessary to deal with the missile threat coming from north korea. whatever steps are necessary to try to make sure that we are prepared for that. we just talked about deploying a radar system to japan specifically in order to protect against that kind of missile threat. we will continue to work with

our friends in the region to further develop that kind of capability. >> next we will go to bob burns of the associated press. >> is it your view that outside military incantation is needed in and what military role with the u.s. be willing to play? can you comment on reports of the rebels in syria now have u.s. [inaudible] >> with regard to the second, i have no comment on those reports. that should not be interpreted as affirmation one way or another. i just do not know what the reports are. i do not know of us providing any such missiles in that area. secondly, with regard to the

issue of mali, i have made clear in the positions as i've had both as director of the cia and now secretary of defense that we have to ensure that al qaeda has no place to hide. we have to continue to go after them wherever they are, wherever they tried to develop a command and control capability from which they could conduct a tax on europe for this country. in order to confront that threat, which has now moved throughout the region, we are doing it in yemen. we're doing it in somalia. it.e cannincontinuing to do the effort ought to be able to work with nations in that region to ensure that al qaeda does not develop that kind of based in molali.

should be developed with countries in the region that share the same concern. what we are prepared to do is to discuss with our regional partners a plan that would deal with that threat and how to respond to it. >> this question from john. >> i would like to ask mr. kim. i heard that the country agreed to form a combined group to discuss the command structure. there are speculations that this is a way to build a second. what kind of structure do you think this new structure will

have been the featured ac -- in the future? we agreed to form a group that will deal with a future command structure. once this does take place, the military will be supported. the u.s. will be supporting. this will cause us some inefficiency. this will be a buy polarized system -- bi-polarized system. we know the combined forces defense mechanisms structure has a great strength. we are trying to seek a future command structure that would leverage the know-how from all the experiences from the combined forces command.

we are trying to build a system following the dissolution after the combined forces. we're not trying to build another. >> to both raise the back to a no. 3 and the ability to develop in north korean arsenal. the world has been surprised by the previous and a clear and weapons test in general. there's very little that the u.s. and allies understand about the new leader. is there any credible information to suggest that they may be about to launch another weapons test board clears weapons test -- or nuclear weapons test? in the u.s. military's pettitte to the asian-pacific region and provide them more understanding

and intelligence of how he plans to exert his own influence around the region back. can the pettitte the leveraged as a way to get north korea to return to six party talks -- the pivot the leveraged as a way to get north korea to return to six party talks? >> we discussed the new leader of korea. i had the minister discuss that in the sessions we had, what his thoughts were. i think he has a pretty good some rain of our initial -- summary of our initial analysis of the leader. >> your question can be summarized in 23. the first concern is korea public regime. it is no. 3.

let me return to the kim jong- un regime. this is very much based on a very controlled north korean system. this seems to be quite stable as far as a nuclear test. there are chances of a third nuclear test as how we see the situation. we have been preparing for this for quite a long time. this may resort to this third nuclear test. recently they are trying to introduce a new economic reform measures. he tends to be making attempts to be making a better life for his people.

it has yet to be seen. this is the only international system to deal with a north korean issue. i believe this system should be implemented. it will continue to shape the environment to return to sixth party talks. >> i think the minister has done a very good job in analyzing this.

we still do not know whether he would follow in the steps of his father or whether he represents a different kind of leadership for the future. the concern we have is that they continue to prepare for missile test. they continue to prepare for nuclear tests. they continue to engage in enrichment of uranium against all international rules. they continue to behave in a provocative way that threatens the security of of our country and a south korea and the region. it is for that reason that i think it is extremely important that our two countries working with other countries do what ever we can to ensure that it is make clear that the kind of behavior that we have seen in the past is not the kind of

behavior that we will tolerate in the present or future. to do that is one of the purposes of rebalancing to the pacific region. to make clear that as a pacific power we intend to maintain a strong presence in the pacific. working with south korea and other counters -- other countries and china to ensure that we promote security and prosperity in that region. the hope is that by doing that by acting was strange that we can send a clear message to north korea that it would be much more preferable for them to instead of behaving in a provocative way, if they would sit down and tried to negotiate a resolution to these issues. we will continue to pursue that.

the most important thing in order to insure that we are able to engage in that kind of negotiation is to make sure that we have a strong military relationship between the united states. we can make very clear that our interest is not in any kind of provocative behavior. >> that is all. have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> our road to the white house continues when paul ryan will be out campaigning.

he is in cleveland. he will be speaking to ohio voters. later president obama head out for a today swing the other a number of states starting out west with live coverage of his remarks here and c-span from denver at 40 5:00 p.m. eastern. there is more campaign 2012 coming up between the two candidates to represent new york's 27 house district. this will be live on c-span2. but i regularly watch "washington journal." i watch call-in shows in the morning. whenever there is a hearing that is of any significance, i will soon end. i also watched c-span on line.

c-span provides unvarnished information to us that is rare in today's spin-oriented society. we cannot regularly get the kind of information that we need to make decisions for ourselves. we often have to hear from the left or the right. the great thing about c-span is to get the information directly from the policymakers of the you can make up your own mind about who is right and what is good for the country. >> gregory evans watches c-span on time warner cable. c-span, created by america's cable companies in in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> now senate debate between candidates to the indiana's the next senator. the political report rated this

as a tossup. also participating in this horning.nd drew this is courtesy of lakeshore television. >> welcome to the campus of indiana university southeast and indiana. we are here for the second of two debate featuring candidates for the u.s. senate from indiana. i and the retired editor of the indianapolis star and i will be moderating this debate. candidates will answer questions presented to the commission by indiana voters. this is being shown live on radio and television stations throughout indiana and being broadcast live nationwide on c- span. the debate commission is a non- profit, and not just government

organization dedicated to expand opportunities for boaters to hear issues of importance. go to indianadebatecom mission.com. all the questions came from beithe voters. each candidates will have one minute to answer most questions. we will try for 32nd rebuttals of we have time. we will take a page from history with a sequence borrowed from the famous lincoln douglas debates. after the candidates take part in that segment we will return to both your questions. then we will end with a fired general question in which eat canned as 90 seconds for a closing statement. we'll -- the new and with a general question in which each candidate has a 90 seconds for a closing statement. the candidates are richard

mourdack, republican an, andrew horning, libertarian, and donnelly, dimon crap. >> it is important that indiana cannot be outweighed by the fact that it is important nationally. in a determined the majority in the united states senate. my opponent has a clear track record of saying one thing and having a different direction. he is a fiscal conservative. yes supported stimulus and big spending. we are going forward. you need to know about who the other candidates are. i am a geologist. five years ago i was asked to

join gov. daniel steam. i did my part during to make sure we live within our means. we get this going. we look forward to the commonsense principles. >> i do not need to say too much about the two-party system. what i do have to say is most people agree with me now more than they agree with the other guys. what you're most of the time is the odds are not good. what i want to talk about is the odds are that we are in a very special country that has never happened before where the had so many liberties that we have thrown away. ooner orons fall sum later. we want to fight the odds. you can say no to all the above

and vote for something other than the two-party system. that is the option i am putting on. i will talk more specifically about the constitution. you all need to know there's something we need to deal with before we get to ideology. we have a crony network running the country. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the chance to be here. the question is who will i voted for 2.4 trillion in spending cuts, voted for a pipeline that we need to do in our country. my opponent mr. mourdock said the highlight of politics for him is to inflict his opinion on other people. for me, it's the chance to see a veteran come home and quet a good job. it is the chance to see our auto workers go to work every day because we stepped up and

rescued those companies. it's not about the left or right, it's about america. they say i vote with the democrats 70% of the time, i vote with republicans 60% of the time but i vote for hoosiers 100% of the time. >> now we're going to turn to questions from the voters. this student senches on the student counsel, he voted for the first time in the may primary. he's the model of youth in civic affairs and in keeping with the situation last night on foreign policy his question is about foreign policy. welcome. >> [inaudible]

>> i think we had a mike problem but i'll restate the question. does current u.s. foreign policy in the middle east juned mine our national security dorks you agree or disagree? what steps should be take nn foreign policy in the middle east? >> well, our foreign policy is of critical concern of course. and in the middle east we must stand by our great friend israel and we must be making the message that no options can be taken off the table as we look towards nirke iran. but it was the former head of the joint chiefs of staff that said the greatest threat to our national security is our own national debt. the fact we have now spent

ourselves into a $16 trillion debt is inexcusable. the fact we see the debt limit raised and mr. donnelly has raised it 7 times, this is the clear and present danger. we continue to loan money to people from whom we borrow money. we have to get our spending under control and then when we do that we will again be able to fully fund the military to make sure we have the greatest military defense in the world. >> i'm the strength through peace candidate. i do not believe our policies have done us any good. i believe if you look up something like the pet ro dollar and the fact our dollar is tied to oil more than anything else, you'll see a good part of our foreign policy is tied to all of the worst decisions we've made.

i'm opposed to just about anything that i've seen coming out of washington d.c. for the last00 years. we've not had a years peace since the war to end all wars. we've not had a declared war since world war ii. all of that is immoral and it's not working. i would say we ought to be doing peace, commerce and entangling alliances with none. >> first and foremast osama bin laden is dead. in regards to iran, they cannot get a nuclear weapon. it is a non-negotiationable point. what you've seen so far with sanction social security their currency is 80% less than it was a few years ago. their oil shipments have dried up. so we continue to put pressure on iran and stand with our

friend israel because an attack on israel is an attack on the united states. we stand together as a team to make sure that iran cannot get a nuclear weapon. and in regards to afghanistan, the bravest men and women are serve our country. there ivep i've been in the living rooms of the men and women who serve. they will be home by 2014. >> again, we cannot have a strong national defense if we can not control our own budget. as we see now the obama care bill is going to cost us .7 trillion going forward was that was a mistake. mr. donnelly was the deciding vote for that bill. when you take that money out of our economy you're going to weeng our defense and our economy. because as we pay more and more to pay the interest on our debt it's pulling money out of our

economy that would be creating jobs that would put people back to work. we deal with our budget that we reduce that spending. >> well, as i often say i do agree we can have unlimited warfare with a sky as the limit approach we back up our friends as the outcome for the united states citizens. whenever i see democrats and republicans agree it's because they're wrong. we ought to think about whether we want to keep doing this. we're not the police women of the world. nobody ever gave us that role. we're supposed to be armed to the teeth and ready for whatever comes in our borders but otherwise leave everybody alone. >> mr. mourdock's only contribution to the healthcare discussion was when he told the new albany newspaper that

employers should not be able to have cancer care. in regards to our foreign policy, our greatest treasure, our men and women who are serving and we have to make wise decisions for them and they should be coming home to rebuild indiana not just cobble. >> our next question is the drought we experienced this summer was devastating to local economies and posed a threat to public health. whether this can be attributed to climate change, we will see more, so more threats. i'm not asking whether you agree. i'm asking if you believe the u.s. government has a significant responsibility to help community tiss and

individuals prepare for climate related threats to our well being and if so what specific policies would you recommend? if not, do you think adapting to climate instability is the response? >> i'm glad she i did sected. it's more political discussion chan scientific. i do believe there is a valed role for the government to protect resources. so i do believe that there say very strong role that is not being played out at all right now. in fact it is difficult for people to seek some kind of compensation for when a company builds a plant right next to your farm and starts sending smoke into it. unfortunately the lit gakes that these guys have been givening us have made it

difficult to hold large corporations accountable because they are the biggest cribblettors. we should be following the money on this and not think it's insquerblele having bill yons of dollars going into campaigns. that is serious. >> the first thing we should have done is pass a farm bill which and i fought on the floor night and day to pass that farm bill to stand up for indiana's farmers. my friend with the indiana corn growers alliance and i were should tore shoulder trying to get this done. and the tea party wouldn't put it to the floor for a vote. we need to stand with our farmers. they need certainty and reliability. i fought to get that done. i would rather be voting on the farm bill right now than being here at the debate. we need to get the farm bill

done. in regards to the energy peace, we need all in american energy. clean coal is a part of this whether it's coal lick qui faction or gasification. when we do these things and have american energy, we can also clean up our environment. >> there was an interesting book written a few years ago that made the point for all the money we could put into fighting global climate change we could better provide basic water and sanitation to people around the world. the drought was devastating to indiana farmers. and i hope we will have a risk base insurance program so farmers can be protected. but what can we afford in the long run. if we have a government that spends itself out of control running up a $16 trillion debt

by trying to finances another 1.7 trillion through stimulus programs, we're not going to be able to provide essential services let alone things that come our way. >> the debate commissioner received several questions involving social security. and how do you propose to make this system financially sound for our children and grand churn. the voters want to know your positions on the various proposals such as increasing or removing the payroll tax cap, reducing or raising the retirement ange, these kinds of things. if you could be specific and address your solutions to the social security issue, that's what voters want. >> the specific solution to this is that the discussions regarding social security will

be part of the deficit reduction talks that will move forward after this election. and in that social security will be discussed, medicare will be discussed and reducing the debt by up to $5 trillion will be a big part of it. and what we have to do is do it with republicans and democrats together. the one thing that won't be talked about i believe is privatization because we don't want social security to be put at risk. we saw the stock market go down to 6500, it's come back up to 13,000. we don't want to take a chance with the earnings of the people who have contributed over the years. so we have the opportunity as we move forward to be able to get this done in those discussions that will be part of the grand bargain. mr. mourdock favers privatization. do i not. >> first of all, let's put social security and medicare in that same bucket. because the fact is that the

obamacare bill that congressman donnelly said he read it before he voted on it. i take him at his word. that bill took $716 billion away from medicare. it takes money away from those who would be providing those services. we need to deal with social security and medicare and deal with this fundamental principle. if you're over 55 when the reform comes, nothing changes for you. i also believe we have to start immediately telling those between the age of 5 and 55, 40 and 45 and so on, younger workers there must be a different set of rules in place for you and they should be given the choice to stay for themselves or select a government program and then we can keep our promises. >> speaking of fundamental principles i'm operating on one that says if you buy one with

somebody eals's money it isn't yours. we're mortgaging our children's future in the future. we have unfunded liabilities going up to trillions of dollars. if you think about what we've been doing with social security since it started in 1936 when the retirement age was calculated. it was a very cynical monkey trap. they've taxed the benefits. they've increased the ages. i think it's time to have a serious discussion about whether we want to amend the constitution and make this a constitutional thing or find a better way to take care of our elderly. >> part of the frustration of voters is they want specifics. what do you think should be

done? >> the specifics are going to be put together in the by partisan talkses and the talks will be part of every discussion that takes place. button 716 billion richard, you take that out in your budget but mr. mourdock gives it away in tax breaks, we put it into care for seniors and to be able to get prescriptions for 50% off. i think that's a better use of the fund. >> that's totally incorrect. the fact is $716 billion will come out of medicare and it will result in at least a 15% reduction in the delivery of services to seniors. that is not richard mourdock that's the actuary that works for the united states congress. >> when you have two parties bickering like this, you need

to have a marriage counselor come in and introduce some sense into the decux. we haven't done that for a long time. this is a serious subject and nobody is talking about taking away anybody's benefits. we can't pay for it. i've been specific offering up fair taxes to get rid of the demographic problems in the way we fund social security and medicare. >> we're going to move to the lincoln douglas segment of our debate. i'll ask each candidate to make a statement about his beliefs on a particular issue and then the other candidates will comment on that statement. we'll return to the first candidate to make a response and we'll go for three rounds through this process. >> mr. mourdock let's begin with your one minute statement please. >> let's talk about that obamacare issue.

because congressman donnelly when he had the choice was asked if he would support a national healthcare plan he said no. he was asked if he would support a massachusetts style romney plan, he said no. he said he was against obamacare but he voted for it. when the partisanship was put on it, this person saw his principles melt away like july ice cream. he caved. that's not what we need. something called the medical device tax is going to devastate the hoosier science industries. it's all because congressman donnelly cast a deciding vote for that bill. i'd like to know why yide vote for it and if you'd do it again. >> there is a site out there

and there are these things about extreme stands and as i was reading about the extreme stands of mourdock. a lot of what he said is correct. so there is hope for you if you want to come to the lib tarne party. but what he just accused mr. donnelly of is back peddling on a lot of those stances and he has repudiated a lot of those statements. right on, i was with you with that. you got to stick with it. you need somebody who is going to stick with principles. i've all the been that. anybody knows i'm not going to budge. i've read the constitution state and federal and i am the one guy who is going to defend and support the united constitution and the constitution of indiana against all enmies, both foreign and domestic and i hit the that's what we need right now.

we need something that is going to stand for something other than the two-party system. we all know that system really stinks. why we keep voting for it requires splation in my view. why do we keep doing this? we know the guys who are funding their campaigns are expecting something in return for their investment. we know they're going to get it. we know this money comes for some kind of reason. we should be finding out with every law that is written, somebody is getting a benefit out of it. what is getting the benefit. it's not me. all the people who live around me on a farm know the kind of stuff we do with farm bills is not for farmers. we should be looking to see what the money is coming for and vote against that. >> mr. donnelly. >> as i said before, mr. mourdock, you need

contributions to healthcare has been to say in jeffersonville to the new albany paper where we are now that employers should have the right to not cover cancer care. i don't think that's the way to good healthcare coverage. as we look at this and move forward, mr. mourdock said he questioned whether medicare was constitutional. he thinks medicare should be turned into a voucher system where you get a $6200 coupon or where you have to pay up to $6200. it puts you in a dangerous financial situation. in regards to the healthcare bill t 716 billion you talked about before, instead of being put into senior care, into wellness care and the chance for our seniors to get prescriptions at 50% off, you gave it away in tax breaks.

what the healthcare bill does for people who have cancer diabetes, they can get coverage for the first time. if you are between the ages of 21 and 26 you can stay on your parent's program for healthcare. if you are a senior, you can get prescriptions at 50% off. these are good things. are there fixes? yes, but i'm the only one up here who will fix it. mr. mourdock wants to repeal it but put the good parts back in. we have the good parts already in place. we've all had people in our families who have been touched by cancer. do you want to take away that coverage that they now have? i think the way to go with this is to fix healthcare, not to blow it up all over again. >> mr. donnelly, first your point about the interview with the newspaper. you take that out of context

because i said if a company did that it would not have any employs because no one would choose to work there. you said you're the person standing here, you're correct, you're the only person standing here who voted to take $716 billion away from medicare. the problem is putting a democrat between a hoosier and thare doctor. the fact is it's showing more to be what it is which is the greatest tax increase on american people in american history. a few weeks ago i stood up in south bend to make the argument that it is obamacare tanled extension of obamacare through the health and service was department to tell the catholic church what they can and can't and must provide by the way of healthcare coverage. i was proud to stand there and it's unfortunate a guy from note ter dame is not there to

defend. >> the last time i had this opportunity nobody answered my question. i guess the variation i would like to make on it this time though is you think about what most people noy about our political system and what we have hopes for. we've been told things about quality under law. about how the rich and powerful guys obey the laws like the rest of them. i'm all about peace, commerce, the kind of things that people came to this country before to get where they didn't have it anywhere else in the world. yet we've been doing so much to screw that up for the last 100 years. we all know it. my question is why would she we -- should we give you another chance to get this right when we've given you 100 years to do it and you've screwed it up?

>> what has created the problems is the attitude of partisanship, of bickering and fighting. bipartisan ship is democrats doing what republicans want them to dofment i can't think of something more off target or more off base. to move this country forward, to solve these problems, we have to have people of goodwill working together to reduce the debt, to create more opportunities for jobs, to make sure that our men and women come home from afghanistan in mid 2014 as scheduled. that's what this is about. what my way or the highway is about means say that medicare is uns constitutional.

it means going after our auto companies and putting over 100,000 indiana jobs at risk. and if you have been successful, indiana would have gone into a depression. i've fought non-stop not only because those jobs were important to our economy, but because those were real families. whether they would be forced to move. that is what this is about. when we work together, good things happen. >> mr. mourdock. >> he brought up an excellent point. it is about partisanship. partisanship does cause people to do the wrong thing. it was he who said early on

that he was against earmarks. the pressure was on early on. let's go back to the first presidential debate. mitt romney got it right. when you looked at president obama and say my way or the highway, and that is what obamacare was. that was not one single republican vote for that. you cannot say there was at least one good idea that could have been made. let's have some partisan discussions. he went the partisan roots in

voted that line. that is unfortunate. every now and again it is suggested he does not know how washington works. it is not working. it is because of the partisanship that we will say one thing in the state, say one thing in the district and caved in to harry reid, a cave in to nancy pelosi. he did not even support nancy pelosi for speaker. that is a pattern. it is not what his plan to fix washington. >> people say i am a dreamer. i am not the only one. let me be pragmatic. you have what you have chosen. you do not have to choose

this. you can do better. every time i ran for office i have written down specific plans of what we need to do. my good friend wrote down a budget i signed on to call the road to reality. if you have an injury will come up with an android. do you want specifics? we will give you plenty. this is not the way it was supposed to work. they bicker back and forth. people tell me i am the one who is streaming? this cannot work. >> thank you very much. >> a minute for your statement. >> i have a record where i have worked took my colleagues to make sure that indiana get better highway funding, to keep our air base in fort wayne, to

make sure our veteran center was able to expand and grow without spending one additional dollar. he has said that bipartisanship is democrats doing what republicans want them to do. here is what that means. it means saying that medicare, you question its constitutionality. it means of social security you question the constitutionality. on the budget, it means instead of money going to veterans care, veterans care is reduced and there is more tax breaks for those offshore. >> mr. mourdock. >> what is going to prepare washingtons people from the outside who know how to make a system work?

we have a system today that is terribly broken. i believe these are well meaning people. they get there and they lose their direction. he says one thing when he is back there and then he voted another way when he gets there. they're sending an important in agriculture, moving the inheritance tax. they see the taxes are so heavy that the kids who were going to inherit the farm have to sell it just to keep half of it. issue after issue we see the same pattern. we're not going to get washington fixed it the same

people keep going and doing the same things. it was the people who are there who want to sell out for partisanship, and he will not take that stand for principle. i've seen things taken out of context. he said this rise about constitutionality and social security. you heard me make my statement on social security. i love what i am doing. i want to get people to think about these issues. this is about the future of our country. >> your two minutes. >> they're talking about dysfunctional our system is. they say a lot of things about the other party.

i cannot disagree. what we do not need is more bipartisanship. you need tri-partisanship. i'm not going to turn your world upside down. take that back. if you vote for me and i win, what can imagine what will happen in d.c.? , a person with no money get elected? how will that work? i do not think you can fix your party. i know lots of people who did not change by washington, d.c.. people like ron paul would turn against. they would do the same thing to you. as a republican you'll be fighting your own party. i saw the inside of that beast. it is not one that we need to keep breathing life into.

there comes a time when the need to feed the monster. this is dysfunctional. it is bad. nobody likes it. what are you doing? this is not an office betting pool. i am not the one playing a game up here. >> thank you. >> the word i talk about business mr. mourdock. i have one of the most independent voting record in congress. i voted for spending cuts. i joined with my republican friends for the balanced budget amendment. i voted for the keystone pipeline. i worked every day to make sure our veterans all over our state have a chance to get great health-care.

those are the kind of things we're supposed to do. the highlight of politics is seeing a young man or women get into one of our service academies. is seeing a that come back in getting their gi benefits. it is being able to go over to afghanistan and iraq and let them know we care about you. we love you. the one he home safely. >> thank you. we are done with the lincoln and douglas portion. we're now back to questions from voters. this is a retiree about term limits. would you propose a bill to limit terms of both houses of congress? >> i absolutely would. i signed on to that very plain. i believe in term limits. i believe they are good things.

there is a myth in washington and by the people who oppose term limits that we need seniority to have good ideas. one of the best ideas that came along is a balanced budget amendment presented by senator mike lee. that bill would actually put a cap on spending. since early had only been there for six weeks when he offered that idea appeared not only would i support a constitutional amendment to limit terms, and impose such terms of myself. when i was elected county commissioner, i said i believe in term limits. i said i would serve two terms for four years when i was done. i was done. >> plus the recognition that voters are not doing their jobs. isn't that what you're supposed to be doing? we do need to have term limits.

it should be pretty severe term limits. maybe three terms in the house. i am fully in favor of that. a lot of people said that. when the republican revolution came through, it they have a voluntary pledge. i am against voluntary pledges. that means the lawyers will still be there after all the good ones have gone home. we have to be serious. we have not been voting for people who are going to actually propose and stick by term limits. we have to get more hard news about it. what that means is a boot out the guys who are already there. isn't that what this is about? >> mr. donnelly. >> i have served three terms in the house. i have done work to try to save our automobile industry. i try to stand up for our veterans.

i worked for the state of indiana. if i had the privilege to serve in the senate, i would think that if i was fortunate enough to win it, two terms would be plenty. it is a program that could work. even more than chairman is that we put ourselves or some legislative term limits, it is the people that make that decision. by going to vote. by listening. by studying the issues. by calling your legislatures. that is how you can be the most engage. people are the ones who determine who represents them. we're just the hired help. >> let's continue this would 32nd rebuttals. this is a hot button issue. >> it is a hot-button issue and it should be. we see the same people going back time and time again. there is a stillness.

i mention having served as a county commissioner. i started to realize after the second term that i was seeing things a little bit differently. i was being cutting part of the system, not there to fix the system. the key bringing in new people you have a little more of an edge. >> i believe we should bring in new people. once again, the solution is pretty much me. we have so many times when it comes up with partisanship or the fact that people have been around for 100 years. we as voters have to understand that we are powerful enough to fix this and are accountable for their results anyway. we own this country. we cannot delegate away our responsibility. our founders gave us no excuse.

>> the greatest wisdom we get in this job is from you. in the backyards of indiana. at the supermarket of indiana. we are the hired help. you are the boss. we work for you. he had the wisdom to tell us what to do. there's a lot more wisdom to tell you at home than in washington. on the left in the right all they do is fight. here at home it is use your common sense. >> the issue of contraception continues to divide the country. questions reflected that a fight. one voter wanted to know your position on a woman's right to abortion and contraception and other reproductive health services. in other as if you believed that life begins at conception. what would you do to predict the babies that would be aborted? where you stand on these issues?

>> this will be tough. all the men up here said that we are pro-life. what does that really mean? this is a state level crime. unless across state boundaries is not supposed to be a state matter. i would have to oppose roe v wade as law. we have been doing so badly for so long, we've forgotten the right. you cannot just say no to child-support. we have gotten so lopsided with looking at this as only a woman's issue we forget that there are all kinds of ways around this where we can make it easier for people to adopt children. there are a lot of things we can do better.

as the federal legislature, there is not that much that i could do. >> i believe in pro-life. i believe that life begins at conception. the only sections i believe and are for rape, and life a mother. i believe women have a right to access quality health care. i believe that religious institutions have a right to not vote against their own religious beliefs. we cannot ask them to do something they simply cannot do. how do we make sure that a woman has a right to that quality health care while at the same time protecting the rights of religious institutions to not violate their own beliefs/ that is what we're working on right now. many groups have filed suit.

they have every right to file that suit. i am working on a legislative solution to it. there's also the work done on the judicial side. we're trying to get an executive solution as well. >> thank you. >> this is an issue every candidates faces. i stand for life. i know there are some who disagree and i respect that view. i believe life begins at conception. the only exception i have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. i struggled with myself for a long time but life is a gift from god. even when life begins in that horrible situation of about rape, it is something that god intended to happen. the comment about obamacare and trying to report it, that is good. it should not be here in the first place. bad we have so many churches have to file a lawsuit to get

their basic freedom that i thought was guaranteed. and now there has to be an amendment to bring that about. >> you have people drawing up sides. there is no winning this issue. it is an outcome of something terrible happening sometimes. it is dealing with rape and life situations that nobody wants. we cannot do but justice to this. i would not be able to do justice to this. i'm telling you right now i would fail and what i would try to achieve. >> thank you. >> my catholic faith has guided me on this issue. i know faith have guided my

friends. i want to mention one thing. we have a program in my hometown. provide a positive alternative for women who are pregnant for a place to live, a place to be cared for. somebody to know that you have people who care about you and love you and want to help you in any way. >> you have 30 seconds. >> obamacare has caused this issue of religious freedom, ordering the catholic church and institutions that find it morally objectionable to provide contraceptive care goes against their basic faith. it is wrong. mr. donnelly, it was obamacare that cause this argument to surface in the first place.

>> moving to our next questions. this is a retired teacher and a historical interpreter from indianapolis. are you hoping to serve in the u.s. senate, i would like to hear your stances on gun-control and same-sex marriage. we all need to be quick on this, 30 seconds. >> mr. donnelly. >> that is the combination in one question. in regard to gun control, i believe in the second amendment. it is in our constitution. people in our country have a right to bear arms. in regard to same-sex marriage, i believe that marriage is between a man and woman. >> i also believe one man, one woman. other>> i go for all of our

rights, not just the second amendment. i am in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. in answer to, what is this all about? do you have any right at all? you divide it up into a second amendment or against the first amendment. i like certain parts. >> i need the advice from our producers. and we move on to the last question? the final question. you have 90 seconds. after two debates, this the last time you'll be able to speak to a statewide broadcast audience. with the election two weeks away, what do you want voters to remember about you as the candidate and a person? >> i am a person who does stand

by his principles and works with others to get things done. elections do have consequences. 60% recently oppose the reelection of president obama but mr. donnelly support him. we have 2/3 of hoosiers who say we are on the wrong track. we have overwhelming numbers showing hoosiers disagree with obamacare. even after he said he would not support it, he caved in. that is not good. i have been attacked because i do stand up for my principles. it was about standing up for the role of law and my oath of office to protect for pensioners, retired teachers and retired cops. i stand for my principles. mr. donnelly stood for his we would not have obamacare.

senator lugar and i were rivals. tonight we stand united on this point. that is harry reid cannot continue as the majority leader in the united states senate. mr. donnelly cannot tell us whether he will vote for him or not. we are 14 days in front of an election. if you do not know who you will vote for the senate, perhaps you should not run for senate. we need to get this country back on track. we need to make washington work like indiana. >> i about this to finish my last question the marriage is another example of where we have misplaced our fate. when do we give marriage over to the government were to cesar? there is an alternative to this in god we trust thing. the politics we are not

supposed to give everything to delegate to charity. we have given our money unconstitutionally to a private bank. we have screwed up everything our founders warned us about. a dozen presidents, a center is a post the protecting the indian constitution from federal intrusion. we have been doing a terrible job at that. if you look up my website, both indian and federal are both relevant. you will find out that we have been badly misled in almost every particular. of course obamacare is unconstitutional. most of what democrats and republicans have done has been unconstitutional for the last 100 years.

let's go back. we had something special in this country. i want it back. >> i think my friend and the putting for being with me. i think it is sad that mr. mourdock it's all a politics. this is after traveling around indiana kneecapping richard lugar. the wisdom does not come from washington. it comes from back yards. it comes in factory floors and diners. there is a whole lot more wisdom in indiana and there is in washington, d.c. i get my wisdom from the people of our state. when i play on my knees before got every night.

i am a humble servant. i do the best i can. it is not always perfect. $2.40 trillion in spending cuts. balanced budget amendment. this is what richard lugar has always stood for. he has been someone who has worked hard, done his duties, stood up for the country. that is how i have tried to serve. this is about our children and our grandchildren's future, reducing the debt, having our young men and women come home from afghanistan, building a better country for our children and grandchildren so we can continue this incredible tradition. i ask for your vote. god bless you. god bless indiana. god bless the united states of america. >> thank you so much for being here.

thank you to be voters who participated. let's get a special thanks to indiana university. join us next week for the final five debate sponsored by the commission. this is the final debate involving the gubernatorial candidates. join us there. good night from new albany, indiana. thank you. you can applaud. >> some news from na indiana debate richard mourdock just a short while ago said he's standing by his statement that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape that is something he intended. he regrets if his comment left

another impression. also snorkelly from new hampshire has cancelled her trip to indiana for today. she said later on that her spokesman said she disagrees with mr. mourdock's comments. that is one of the campaign 2012 debates we've been covering this election season. follow more here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> more debates coming thup evening, the latest debates between candidates representing new york. that's at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. also at 7:00 live coverage with the north carolina candidates for governor. live on c-span2. >> what he just said is not true -- senator, you need to do

a better job of explaining your own record because you're messing up my record. apparently you're looking at somebody else and it's a shame. the people of the state of florida are tired of you saying one thing to them and going back to washington d.c. and voting with president obama 90% of the time. they're tired of that. they want you to tell them what you're going to do for them instead of what you're dwog to do for president obama. >> is that the only line that you've memorized? >> are you going to own up to it senator? >> let me tell that you violence against women for you not to have produced it in the house where we were trying to produce it in the senate is just -- here we are in 2012 and it is true you voted for

redefinition of rape as forcible rape. seems to me that rape is rape. >> with less than two weeks to election day, follow the key house and governor races on c-span campaign 2012. >> candidates debated tuesday in chicago lib tarne party gary johnson. the candidates discuss ending the federal government's war on drugs as well as the debates between president obama and mitt romney. this 90 minute debate was moderated by former cnn talk show host larry king.

>> good evening. our viewers watching and live audience, our candidates, broadcasting partners and spon source. to every individual taking the time to care to watch this debate tonight. no matter where you are tuning in, no matter what party or group you belong, this debate is for individuals t. voter, the taxpayer, the hardworking middle class worker, the struggling single parent on minimum wage t small business

owner, everyone. i welcome and thank all of you for being here tonight. tonight we are all taking part in something good and real and honest and open without debate contracts and private interest controlling. [applause] without them controling the questions we ask and the answer it is candidates deliver, free, open and fair. we need work to improve the electoral system of the united states by bringing the elections back to the people where it belongs. we do this by opening debates and improving ballot laws and unite people and organizations across the political spectrum who also want free, open and fair lecks. tonight's debate is the first of ts its kind and our sponsors

represent a diverse group of media, radio personalities, organizations and individuals representing all types of political i'dologies. i image our audience is just as diverse. tonight you will meet four presidential candidates, two lean to the left while the other two to the right giving us a perfect balance on vipets of how to fix our broken nation. these candidates secure enough ballot to be here today. we need to open the debate further with more debates, more candidates at every level of government. [applause] ultimately we the people are responsible for our government. if we don't pay attention, if we don't vote or protest or

discuss important issues with friends, co-workers and classmates, then we get more of the same crument system no matter who is in charge. but if we listen and learn and read and request for about who is really benefiting and educate ourselves of how we really got here and figure out how we can make a poss tiff impact, that's the way to change the system. knowledge sharing, truth seeking, open debates, fresh ideas and discovering a common ground aamongst each other. we are at a critical time in our nation's history, it's time to take our country back. [applause] thank you very much for joining us tonight.

our moderator this evening is award winning broadcaster and media personality larry king. [applause] >> his new online home and he is the host of "larry king now" >> welcome everybody. i'm very happy to be doing this. i think all voices should be heard. a few notes about the format for tonight's debate is an easy job for me because it's a rather simple format. each candidate will have an opportunity make a two-minute opening statement t. order has been randomly determined. six questions will be asked in all. the questions have been selected by

each candidate will have two minutes to answer. each candidate will have a total of six opportunities in all. once all four candidates give their responses, they will each have an additional one minute to expand or not expand -- they can choose to respond or not. candidates can use their additional minutes or save their time to use it later. we will wrap up with a two- minute closing statement from each candidate. with that, let me introduce these four independent candidates. first, and jill stein, mother, a physician, a longtime teacher of internal medicine, and the green party a nominee for president. [applause] as you can already tell, we are

permitting audience participation. we are in downtown chicago, by the way, at the hilton hotel. next is rocky anderson, the former mayor of salt lake city and the justice party nominee. [applause] l> is vi -- next is virgia goode, the constitution party nominee for president. [applause] and the final independent candidate is former gov. gary johnson -- [applause] gary is the libertarian party nominee. the first question is our electoral system. this question is from the free

and equal elections foundation, hosting this debate, and will be asked by christina tobin. >> thank you. we will start from the left to the right. here is our question. a top two primary is an election in which party labels appear on the ballot, but parties do not nominate candidates. instead, the candidates choose their own ballot label. all candidates run in the primary, but only the top two vote getters appear on the ballot in the november election. the system is p currently used in louisiana, washington state, and california. it is now a ballot member prop 21. what is your position on the top two primary system and why? >> we'll start with jill stein. >> thank you. and thank you so much to free & equal, and thank you for being here. i think top two does not enlarge our democracy.

in many ways, it confuses things more. it puts many candidates onto the ballot all together, and it arbitrarily attaches party labels to them. any candidate can choose any label they want. so it really degrades the meaning of our political parties, where they have meaning, and i know they don't always, but there are some that do have meaning that aren't bought and sold to the highest bidder, and the green party is one of those parties. and i know there are some other parties here as well, the independent parties, where the parties actually represent real values. and the top two obscures the meaning of those parties, and it puts everyone together, so you really can't tell who is representing you, and whoever hats the biggest budget stands to win that primary -- whoever has the biggest budget stands to

win that primary, and it becomes another way that big money can control our electrics. .- elections gue so i oppose top two, as the green party does, and we actually support a whole variety of election reforms for the purpose of enlarging our democracy, not increasing the sellout of our democracy. we are calling for getting money out of politics through public financing. we're calling for opening up the airwaves to all qualified candidates. >> 10 seconds. zwr we would like to clarify that money is not speech and that corporations are not people to take back our constitutional rights. [applause] >> next, for two minutes, rocky anderson. >> the top two system is simply

a continuation of the degradation of our democracy by this monopoly of the republican -- this duopoly of the republican and democratic parties. our democracy is so degraded by these two parties from the beginning in terms of ballot access, in terms of getting on the ballot so you can give people choices. this top two item says you can put your own candidates out there. you can even have two people from the same political party, and that means no choice for the voters. [cheers and applause] last night and in all these vice-presidential debates, look how convictive the debate has -- constrictive the debate has been when you have two parties there. they are arguing about who is going to spend more on the

military budget? barack obama bragging that he's increased the military budget every year they are in office? they are trying to out-do each other in terms of who will drill more both off shore and on public lands, and neither of them cares to talk about getting rid of this disastrous war on drugs. neither of them talk about poverty. when we have the worst poverty rate in this country since 1965. we need to open up the choices. in south africa the world rejoices at the growth of their democracy falling apart. -- falling apartheid. the first ballot in the presidential election that had 18 people's names on it. that's real democracy, and

that's giving the voters real choice. [applause] >> rocky, one quick question. when you were mayor, what party were you in? >> i was in the democratic party, but it was a nonpartisan, and i was a democratic candidate in 1996, but i've had it with the democratic party. [applause] >> virgil goode, what party were you in? >> always conservative. >> your response to the initial question. >> thank you, larry. first i want to say thanks to your being here for lending your name and your prestige to this event, and to thank free & equal for their hard work in bringing a much broader vision to the american people so they will know that they have more choices than just obama and romney. >> i do not favor the top two system.

i agree with jill, as she said, money is not speech, and the top two system enhances those that have the most money. however, i was not in favor of $100 million at the democratic national convention of taxpayer money, $100 million to the republican convention of taxpayer money. [applause] >> the top two system is primarily a state issue. i would not be in favor of federal legislation rebealing -- repealing what louisiana

done or telling virginia or telling maine or telling arizona or new mexico any state what they should do. but we have to work in every state and every legislator and oppose top two. in my view, it is a hindrance to true democracy for grassroots americans that don't want to be controled by p.a.c.s. [applause] >> and our final speaker on this topic, i know you were a republican as governor of new mexico. gary johnson, your response. >> well, running for governor of new mexico as a republican, i ran completely outside of the political system, completely. and i went and i introduced myself to the republican party two weeks before iran, and they said, you know what? we like you, we like what you have to say. we are completely inclusive. you can go and make your case to all republicans in the state, take part in the debates, take part in the discussions. that's the way politics should be. i was able to make that presentation.

i was able to make that case. by the way, the republican party chairman at that time said, you can do all this stuff, but you just need to know that you will never get elected because it is not possible to get elected governor in the state that's 2- 1 democrat. well, i did get elected. so as governor of new mexico, completely outside of the political system, i have always been pro-choice regarding everything. so should this be a top two candidate voting system? this should be something that gets ferreted out at the local level, at the state level, not at the national level. there are only a couple voices being heard here, and it is tweedle dee and it is tweedle dum. [applause] it is two candidates talking about who is going to spend so much medicare, when you and i put in three times more than

what you get out. it is not sustainable. yet, it is indicative of our federal government today, which is on an unsustainable path, the results of with are going to be an monetary collapse unless we actually bring this under control. as a third party candidate i have been given the opportunity here to make the case that's not being made by either of the two major candidates. >> thank you, governor. [applause] >> a lot of people asked me why i would consent to do this. one, i like moderating, and two, i like asking questions, even though i didn't ask these questions. they were submitted. and three, i think these people deserve a lot of credit for coming forward. it is easy to sit back and watch. they are counting today, and they deserve to be heard. [applause]

>> each is now entitled to a one-minute response if they care to use it. jill? >> yeah, thank you. i just want to mention, talking about how all of us need to stand up and demand real democracy and demand free and open and inclusive debate. i just want to mention that my running mate and i went to the door step of the commission on presidential debates at hoffstra university last week and that we were arrested, we were tightly bound with plastic restraints, and tied to chairs for eight hours for daring to stand up and demand demand open debates. this is what all of us need to do. i encourage you to go to my web site, jillstein.org and sign the petition there on challenging the commission on presidential debates. we should not let them do this again. [applause]

>> rocky, one minute. >> the top two system is a sign that these two parties, the the political duopoly in country is trying to further put their strangle hold on our democracy. we have to stand up. in federal elections, it is a federal matter. we should not leave it to the steps. the corrupting influence of money in this country is at the root of every major public policy disaster. it is why we don't have health care for all, as in the rest of the industrialized world. it is why we aren't providing international leadership on the climate crisis because of all the corrupting money coming from the fossil fuel industry, and it is why we have this enormously wasteful military budget with this military industrial complex putting pressure on congress and the white house. >> five seconds. >> so we need public financing of elections for our democracy.

we need free and equal access to the public airways. >> thank you. >> virgil, one minute. >> thank you. the top two system, as others have indicated, favor the super p.a.c. and the political action committees. they are political action committees not just of business but of unions. i am for no political action committees. individual contributions only and no super p.a.c.s. i believe congress can craft legislation with presidential leadership to stop political action committees. big money that funnels through the p.a.c. is the greatest hindrance, in my opinion, to free and open elections and freedom and democracy in this country. we threw out the king at the time of the revolution because of leafy handedness. -- because of heavy handidness and we need to stand up and throw out the political action

committees. and vote for third parties that will stand up for america. [applause] >> this is a were bott -- rebuttal you can use it or not use it, governor. >> i think when it comes to political campaign contributions that candidates should be required to wear jackets commensurate. [applause] >> what is really needed is 100% transparancy. i will tell you, whether or not romney or obama gets elected, three things will happen. we will continue to find ourselves with a continued heightened police state in this country. we will find ourselves continuing to intervene in the world which has resulted in hundreds of millions of enemies to this country that wouldn't otherwise exist. there is a reason why we shouldn't be using drones. it is because we don't just take out the target, we take out a lot of innocent civilians in these countries where these

drones attack. [cheers and applause] and then lastly, we will find ourselves in a continued state of unsustainable spending and borrowing to the point that we are going to experience a monetary collapse unless we fix this. >> thank you, governor. [applause] >> tonight's second question, all questions submitted by social media were submitted by jeff tanguay of colorado via facebook. question, in what way does the war on drugs impact americans and how could these effects be reduced. is there a more efficient way to do deal with the issue of drug use in america. two minutes. jill stein. >> rocky, actually guest.

. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> how about opening statements? >> did we have opening statements? >> unfortunately, no. >> grassroots. >> i didn't know we had opening statements. i thought we went right to the questions. >> let's go with our opening statements. two minutes each. >> ok. this will be opening statements, and then we will go to the second question. [laughter] >> from jill stein. thank you, larry. >> go ahead, jill. >> great. always glad to lead. [cheers and applause] >> the american people are in crisis. we are losing our jobs, decent wages, our homes by the millions, affordable health care and education.

the climate is in meltdown, and our civil liberties are under attack. the wealthy few are richer than ever rolling in more doe than ever, and the -- dough than ever, and the political establishment is not making it better, imposing insanity on -- austerity on everyday people while they continue to squander trillions trillions of dollars on boring -- wars for oil we don't need, on wall street bail outs, and tax breaks for the very wealthy. [applause] the american people are at the breaking pt. and we need to turn that breaking point in this election into a tipping point to take back our democracy, and see the green future that we deserve, and we do that by standing up and making sure that everyday people have a voice in this election and a choice at the polls that is not bought and

paid for by wall street and by advancing the critical solutions that the american people are clamoring for by large majority. our campaign is calling for a green new deal to create $25 million jobs and unemployment. -- end unemployment,jump start the green economy. and that means putting a whole new climate change and making war for oil obsolete. we're calling for health care for human rights, for medicare for all, and for bailing out the students, not the banks and making public -- [applause] >> governor, it was not in my notes about an opings oh, opening statement. so i apologize. i follow my notes. [laughter] i'm a jewish guy from brooklyn. we do what we're told. >> frankly, people are here to listen to you than us. [laughter] >> we are at a pivotal point in

our nation's history. young people are burdened with crushing tuition debt. millions of families have lost their homes. requirement accounts have been decimated while wall street fat cats who are buying our elections have made out like bandits. we have never had the disparity of income and wealth that we see between the very wealthy and all the rest of us since the 1920's. our poverty rates have never been so high as 1965. child poverty. and infant mortality rates are next to the worst in the world. the united states has the worst rate of industrialized nations of women dying in connection with pregnancy and childbirth. under obama care there will be

30 million people without essential health care by the year 2022. and during the bush and the obama years our constitution has been shredded while the impeerl presidency -- the imperial presidency expanded. the presidents that think they can take us to war on a pack of lies. with presidents that think federal government should have the authority to round anyone up, including u.s. citizens, and imprison them without charges, without trial, without legal representation, and without the right of habeous corpus. and our elected officials are sound asleep when the pentagon is warning that climate change is a greater long-term security risk to the united states than terrorism. so if you like the way things are going, vote democratic or republican. if you want real change, vote your conscience, vote justice. economic justice, social

justice, environmental justice. [cheers and applause] >> back to our opening statement from virgil goode. >> thank you, larry. i want to say thank you jill, gary, and rocky for being here. on the four issues i will address right now, you can deduce my positions of what i think. i will name afour positions in which i am very different from barack obama and mitt romney. first, obama and romney both claim that they were and still are for a balanced budget. reality. the obama budget this year was $1 trillion in deficits. the paul ryan budget which passed the u.s. house was $600 billion in deficit. i have the courage to submit a balanced budget if i'm elected president right after i'm inaugurated. secondly, i am for jobs and

america for american citizens first, and the only candidate that has called for a near complete moritorium on green card admissions to the united states until unemployment is under 5%. it makes no sense to bring in so many foreign workers when our unemployment is so high in this country. [applause] secondly, third, we -- >> running low on time. >> we need the super p.a.c.s and -- need to end super pacs and political action committees, that would be one of the things to open up our country for greater process and greater voice by the people, and finally, we need term limits. it is time to do the best job in congress instead of the election and fund raiser. >> now an opening statement from governor johnson. >> the country is in really deep trouble.

we should not bomb iran. [applause] we should end the war in afghanistan tomorrow. bring the troops home tomorrow. [cheers and applause] marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right on par with civil rights of the 1960's. let's end the drug wars. legalize marijuana now. [applause] let's repeal the patriot act. [cheers and applause] i would have never signed the national defense authorization act allowing for you and i as u.s. citizens to be arrested and detained without being charged. that's the reason we fought wars in this country.

[cheers and applause] i promise to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013. that is a 1.4 trillion reduction in federal spending. if we don't do this now, we are going to find ourselves in a monetary collapse and a monetary collapse very simply is when the dollars we have in our pockets don't buy a thing because of the acome anying inflation -- because of the accompanying inflation that goes along with every dollar we spend. i'm the only candidate that wants to eliminate income tax, eliminate corporate tax, abolish the i.r.s. and replace all of that with one federal consumption tax, the fair tax. i think it is the answer to our exports, it is the answer to american jobs. [applause]

on drugs impact americans? -- >> in what way does the war on drugs impact americans? that was submitted by jeff tanguay via facebook. >> the war on drugs has been an unbelievable tragedy. i remember someone who came to me and his son had been sentenced on his first drug offense to 15 and a half years to a state penitentiary. on the day president clinton left the white house, he signed a presidential pardon saving cory springfield a decade in a federal penitentiary. [applause]

there is someone sitting in a federal penitentiary today with a 55-year sentence for selling marijuana on three occasions because the informant said there was a gun around. so a gun enhancement, mandatory gun enhancement from the judge that entered the sentence said it was an outrage. it was unjust. but 55 years. this is the kind of human toll in this country. we don't just need to legalize marijuana, we need to end drug prohibition, just like we ended alcohol prohibition and treat drug use and abuse as a public health and education issue and get it entirely out of the criminal justice system. [cheers and applause] we have the largest

incarceration rate in the world by far, 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. we have more people in jails in this country on drug offenses and western europe has in their presence on all zero offenses. this has to end. we the american people need to come together, right, left, doesn't matter, we need to demand an end to this insane war on drugs. [applause] >> virgil goode. >> i am an advocate of a balanced budget, and i would cut federal spending on the war on drugs. however, drug use is primarily a state issue, not a federal issue. but this is ven going to set well with most 6 -- with most of you. i am not for legalizing marijuana use or other drug use. if we cut back on the war